G'day
This story raises an interesting question http://www.sciencealert.com/turns-out-australia-isn-t-where-you-think-it-is
In short the GPS location of Australia is about to be adjusted 1.5m or about 5feet I know its not as significant as the change of 1994 when it was adjusted 200m. This shift that will alter all the GPS data held in Wikidata and alter the positioning of media files which have been geolocated.
The question is are there any plans to bulk update all of this information, or will it rely on individual changes to be made to each piece of data. As a secondary question do we even change the location of media files as that data is accurate to when the media was created.
So on this issue I currently only speak on the "bulk updating" issue and I would like to note that I do not speak for the discovery team who have the most focus on both geodata and Wikidata. However I do have a decent passing knowledge about this:
This is a pretty complex issue compounded that geographical data has historically been pretty unloved over the years not just by mediawiki (wikidata support as well) because it is an extremely complex thing by it's very nature.. Unfortunately this leads to click bait by people like the National Geographic "Australia Is Drifting So Fast GPS Can't Keep Up".
*1)* *GPS does not equal GDA94 * Firstly GPS itself is not changing at this point (It does get periodic adjustments but this is not one of them). In this instance it is that Australia is moving from one conventional datum (GDA94 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_Datum_of_Australia_1994) to a new conventional datum with the aim for it to be used in perpetuity - GDA2020 ( http://www.icsm.gov.au/geodesy/modern.html - No wikipedia article, I should probably write it) and also at the same time creating a new reference system ATRS (Australian Terrestrial Reference System - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Terrestrial_Reference_System).
GDA94 uses the exact same number system as WGS84 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System) which adds to the confusion.
Which leads me to point 2 -
*2)* *Wikimedia Coordinates are assumed to be WGS84 * Wikimedia has typically used WGS84 coordinates because of their universality especially on the web ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Mercator). Generally we don't support providing local cartographic grids within articles (at least not I can't seems to find such support) Unfortunately what this means is that we have to assume that grid references we currently use and store are WGS84 coordinates. However this comes with problems because sometimes WGS84 is updated as geodetic and dynamic plate models improve. There is additional vital metadata needed for this.
Unfortunately we currently do not store that information within Wikipedia articles or which leads to point 3 -
*3) Without the correct metadata, it's impossible to the job well * Because currently there is no clear indication within Wikipedia articles and as far as I can tell within Wikidata as to both what *datum* and what *version* any particular coordinate relates to, there is no guarantee that any particular coordinate would be any more correct than it was before.
Going forward we should really should greatly increase the amount of support for geographic metadata within Wikidata. As a result coordinate updates, even fairly minor ones, create inordinate amounts of unnecessary work for volunteers. Good metadata with allows us (either WMF or volunteers) to use translation models that should allow us to be able to maintain such data with minimal volunteer overhead. Without it, it's a headache.
I hope I explained that well... Make sense?
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
currently there is no clear indication within Wikipedia articles and as far as I can tell within Wikidata as to both what *datum* and what *version* any particular coordinate relates to, there is no guarantee that any particular coordinate would be any more correct than it was before.
This definitely should be fixed on the wikidata side. Whether article editors are savvy enough to know and enter this data is another question; but at least the geotemplates should have fields for it and you can assume that if those are empty some {person/bot hybrid} that understands that nuance should fill them in.
~S
Just wondering: would tighter integration between Wikidata and OSM help with this situation, for example, if a set of coordinates is adjusted in Wikidata then it is automatically adjusted in OSM and vice versa? Would that be a good idea?
Pine
On Oct 4, 2016 22:17, "Sam Klein" sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
currently there is no clear indication within Wikipedia articles and as far as I can tell within Wikidata as to both what *datum* and what *version* any particular coordinate relates to, there is no guarantee
that
any particular coordinate would be any more correct than it was before.
This definitely should be fixed on the wikidata side. Whether article editors are savvy enough to know and enter this data is another question; but at least the geotemplates should have fields for it and you can assume that if those are empty some {person/bot hybrid} that understands that nuance should fill them in.
~S _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
While this might sound like a good idea, at least the answer for wikidata -> OSM would be no, mainly for legal/licensing reasons. The other way around would potentially impact wikidatas licensing and would need at least some discussion.
Simon
On 05.10.2016 17:12, Pine W wrote:
Just wondering: would tighter integration between Wikidata and OSM help with this situation, for example, if a set of coordinates is adjusted in Wikidata then it is automatically adjusted in OSM and vice versa? Would that be a good idea?
Pine
On Oct 4, 2016 22:17, "Sam Klein" sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
currently there is no clear indication within Wikipedia articles and as far as I can tell within Wikidata as to both what *datum* and what *version* any particular coordinate relates to, there is no guarantee
that
any particular coordinate would be any more correct than it was before.
This definitely should be fixed on the wikidata side. Whether article editors are savvy enough to know and enter this data is another question; but at least the geotemplates should have fields for it and you can assume that if those are empty some {person/bot hybrid} that understands that nuance should fill them in.
~S _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, There is no room for impacting the Wikidata licensing. There is no question that it is CC-0 and stays that way. The main thing is the database license and it is what we happily wave as our data is mainly secondary anyway. Thanks, GerardM
On 5 October 2016 at 21:04, Simon Poole simon@poole.ch wrote:
While this might sound like a good idea, at least the answer for wikidata -> OSM would be no, mainly for legal/licensing reasons. The other way around would potentially impact wikidatas licensing and would need at least some discussion.
Simon
On 05.10.2016 17:12, Pine W wrote:
Just wondering: would tighter integration between Wikidata and OSM help with this situation, for example, if a set of coordinates is adjusted in Wikidata then it is automatically adjusted in OSM and vice versa? Would that be a good idea?
Pine
On Oct 4, 2016 22:17, "Sam Klein" sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
currently there is no clear indication within Wikipedia articles and as far as I can tell within Wikidata as to both what *datum* and
what
*version* any particular coordinate relates to, there is no guarantee
that
any particular coordinate would be any more correct than it was before.
This definitely should be fixed on the wikidata side. Whether article editors are savvy enough to know and enter this data is another
question;
but at least the geotemplates should have fields for it and you can
assume
that if those are empty some {person/bot hybrid} that understands that nuance should fill them in.
~S _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Simon Poole simon@poole.ch wrote:
While this might sound like a good idea, at least the answer for wikidata -> OSM would be no, mainly for legal/licensing reasons.
Why? I would expect CC0 to be simply relicensable under ODbL (cf. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CC0). The other way, as you say, would be more problematical, ODbL-licensed content cannot be simply imported into CC0-licensed database.
Regards, -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
On 06.10.2016 17:54, Petr Kadlec wrote:
.. Why? I would expect CC0 to be simply relicensable under ODbL (cf. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CC0). The other way, as you say, would be more problematical, ODbL-licensed content cannot be simply imported into CC0-licensed database.
There are (at least) two issues:
- we (OSM) do not allow anonymous contributions and in general expect imports to be associated with a real natural persons account. Automated updating would need to clear some further policy and technical hurdles on top of that.
- we tend to be fairly picky about our sources and have rather strict policies on use of data that we consider unsuitable. Standard example: we would consider coordinates derived from a google provided map as not usable for OSM. I suspect that providing assurance that the original sources confirm to our criteria would be at least very difficult for wikidata.
I should point out that some of the above stems from operating in a different legal and competitive environment than the WMF projects and a rather different approach to providing end-user services and products, not just because we want to be difficult.
To end on a positive note: there is a lot of cooperation going on between OSM and WP/wikidata, particularly in respect to adding wikidata references to OSM objects and I don't see why, for example, this couldn't be used for QA purposes like highlighting changes or large differences in objects locations and other attributes. This would likely avoid most of the issues noted above.
Simon
Wikidata allows to set a coordinate system - it is called a globe or coordinate system - on every coordinate. This would be the natural place to specify whether it is WGS84 or GDA94 or another system. Most of them are Q2, which, as per data model, is indeed WGS84.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/DataModel#Geographic_locations
Unfortunately this is currently not being displayed or edited in the UI, but the backend has the data. In theory.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:17 PM Sam Klein sjklein@hcs.harvard.edu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Joseph Seddon jseddon@wikimedia.org wrote:
currently there is no clear indication within Wikipedia articles and as far as I can tell within Wikidata as to both what *datum* and what *version* any particular coordinate relates to, there is no guarantee
that
any particular coordinate would be any more correct than it was before.
This definitely should be fixed on the wikidata side. Whether article editors are savvy enough to know and enter this data is another question; but at least the geotemplates should have fields for it and you can assume that if those are empty some {person/bot hybrid} that understands that nuance should fill them in.
~S _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org